Texas: State rejects Confederate license plates

Nov 10, 2011 Full story: www.chron.com 56

Just weeks after Gov. Rick Perry expressed opposition to putting an image of the Confederate battle flag on specialty Texas license plates, his appointees on the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles unanimously rejected the proposal Thursday.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Chicago Guy

Winnetka, IL

#45 Nov 13, 2011
iamsmarterthanyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it in everybodies mind there is only North or South? I guess because people only think in black or white.
The “secret” society had 3 million members during its heyday in the early 1920s; roughly half its members lived in metropolitan areas, and although it enjoyed considerable support in the South, the Klan was strongest in the Midwest and Southwest.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6689
Racism, and the Klan, exist everywhere. You're 100% correct about that.

But only the Southern Slave states are idiotic enough to want to commemorate racism in a state license plate.

Next time you see a Confederate flag flying over a statehouse in a union state, you let us know.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#46 Nov 13, 2011
gossamer wrote:
The Confederacy and its history are a very important part of American history.
Americans honor Black History Month.
They can honor the history of the Confederacy where thousands of gallant Americans fought to preserve their land from Northern domination and carpetbaggers.
Take the Civil War Quiz!
Who said the following—Union General Ulysses S. Grant, or Confederate General Robert E. Lee?
If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side.
Your every premise is wrong.

It was the Confederates who attacked the North, started the Civil War, to preserve their slavery.

The war was waged to preserve the perceived right to extend slavery to new territories. Yes, it was all about human slavery.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#47 Nov 13, 2011
Texas: State rejects Confederate license plates

"WHY"? its a sign of Courage and Pride

Southern States should be proud of that flag!

Heck look at this country,Blacks voted for Obama and Barrack Hussien Obama is the Left and George Soros's little trophy boy. He is no different than a blk slave trader in the 1800's
gossamer

Warren, MI

#48 Nov 13, 2011
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry. But that's a bullshit argument.
Many Germans still honor the sacrifices their family members made during WWII. But they'd never be stupid enough to expect the state to issue commemorative license plates with swastikas on them.
Please read some unbiased history. A swastik is in no way comparable to the Southern states flag.
gossamer

Warren, MI

#49 Nov 13, 2011
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
By "idiot", then, do you mean professors of American History?
We've all heard the specious claim about "States Rights" being the cause... but the ONLY right the southern states wanted was to keep slaves.
In fact, slavery is mentioned as a primary motivation for secession in more than half of the southern states' secession declarations.
Wrong.

He opposed its extension in the Territories, but he opposed also interference with slavery in the state; and whenever he considered abolition, it was gradual and with compensation. He was on the slavery issue a moderate, not an abolitionist and not an extensionist. Yet, if this were so, when the states of the lower South seceded, why not let them? They were slaves states; Lincoln did not advocate interfering with slavery in them; outside the Union they could have no influence upon Union policy, no influence upon the Territories."25

The war provided a reason, a need and an excuse for such interference. Jennifer Fleischner, who wrote a biography of Mary Todd Lincoln and her black seamstress and friend, Elizabeth Keckly, observed: "What [Frederick] Douglass called the 'educating tendency' of the war on Lincoln's racial understanding would be reinforced by Lincoln's encounters with dignified black men like Frederick Douglass; yet Lizzy's presence in his family circle also likely contributed to his evolving comprehension of black life in America. By the time Douglass met with Lincoln, Lizzy had developed her own quiet relationship with the President. While combing his hair or sewing in the sitting room when he happened to enter, they sometimes fell into conversation, and like Douglass, she desired and treasured this powerful white man's recognition."30

Pennsylvania politician Alexander K. McClure, who frequently visited Mr. Lincoln at the White House, later wrote: "Lincoln treated the Emancipation question from the beginning as a very grave matter-of-fact problem to be solved for or against the destruction of slavery as the safety of the Union might dictate. He refrained from Emancipation for eighteen months after the war had begun, simply because he believed during that time that he might best save the Union by saving slavery, and had the development of events proved that belief to be correct he would have permitted slavery to live with the Union. When he became fully convinced that the safety of the government demanded the destruction of slavery, he decided, after the most patient and exhaustive consideration of the subject, to proclaim his Emancipation policy. It was not founded solely or even chiefly on the sentiment of hostility to slavery. If it had been, the proclamation would have declared slavery abolished in every State of the Union; but he excluded the slaves States of Delaware, Maryland, and Tennessee, and certain parishes in Louisiana, and certain counties in Virginia, from the operation of operation of the proclamation, declaring, in the instrument that has now become immortal, that 'which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.'"31

According to historian James M. McPherson, "One of the best arguments of [Frederick] Douglass and other abolitionists was that slavery was a source of strength to the Confederacy. Slaves worked in the fields and factories; slaves dug trenches and drove wagons for the Confederate army. Without their labor, the South would collapse, and the North could win the war. A proclamation of emancipation, said Douglass, would cripple the South by encouraging slaves to flee their masters and come over to the Northern side where freedom awaited them."32

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp...
Chicago Guy

Winnetka, IL

#50 Nov 13, 2011
gossamer wrote:
<quoted text>
Please read some unbiased history. A swastik is in no way comparable to the Southern states flag.
Both are unvarnished symbols of hate and separation.

Both are embraced only by those who embrace the agendas of hatred and racial superiority.

I stand by my claims.
gossamer

Warren, MI

#51 Nov 13, 2011
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Your every premise is wrong.
It was the Confederates who attacked the North, started the Civil War, to preserve their slavery.
The war was waged to preserve the perceived right to extend slavery to new territories. Yes, it was all about human slavery.
The Confederates attacked the North.

Hahhahahahhahhahhahahhaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#52 Nov 13, 2011
gossamer wrote:
<quoted text>
The Confederates attacked the North.
Hahhahahahhahhahhahahhaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Please look up Fort Sumter, you ignoramus.
Reasonis

San Antonio, TX

#53 Nov 13, 2011
Anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes,the only place it belongs IS an a museum of American history, because it serves no purpose other than as a reminder of the deep divisions that caused the Civil War, and now as a symbol for many of white supremacy. The country is becoming more and more diverse, with many non-whites who cannot relate to the Confederate flag and what it has come to symbolize. For that matter, there are many whites who don't relate to it either. Some folks think it shouldn't continue to exist at all, but I believe it should serve as a symbol of where at least part of this country once was. It is part of a past that this country never needs to return to ever again, but it should be shown as part of a cautionary narrative.
If the Confederate Flag was, in and by itself, a symbol of the continuation of slavery in the South, I would say don't shove down peoples' throats. But it was also the symbol of Southern unity over the issue of Southern States rights to be Soveriegn States with rights defined and granted by the U.S. Constitution.

One of the issues that arose out of the slavery debate was whether a Soveriegn State had the right to determine it's own economic destiny? There is no doubt in my mind that as a matter of history, that the South would have agreed on any plan that would have allowed it to phase out the slave labor force of Blacks if that labor force would be replaced. In 1860, Blacks probably outnumbered Whites three to one in the South. That would tell anyone the impact of a sudden lose of this labor force would be horrific.

It's much the same issue of the Undocumented Labor Force that is in American today. One of the top arguments for not deporting this labor force in the impact it would have of the American economy.

So, why does the Confederate Flag represent a resentment towards slavery during a critical moral debate in our nations history when it was not the only issue? And will tomorrow bring the same type of resentment towards the Mexican Flag if deportation is not the reasonable, right thing to do, answer to the Undocumented Illegal Alien Labor Force issue?

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#54 Nov 13, 2011
Reasonis wrote:
<quoted text>
If the Confederate Flag was, in and by itself, a symbol of the continuation of slavery in the South, I would say don't shove down peoples' throats. But it was also the symbol of Southern unity over the issue of Southern States rights to be Soveriegn States with rights defined and granted by the U.S. Constitution.
One of the issues that arose out of the slavery debate was whether a Soveriegn State had the right to determine it's own economic destiny? There is no doubt in my mind that as a matter of history, that the South would have agreed on any plan that would have allowed it to phase out the slave labor force of Blacks if that labor force would be replaced. In 1860, Blacks probably outnumbered Whites three to one in the South. That would tell anyone the impact of a sudden lose of this labor force would be horrific.
It's much the same issue of the Undocumented Labor Force that is in American today. One of the top arguments for not deporting this labor force in the impact it would have of the American economy.
So, why does the Confederate Flag represent a resentment towards slavery during a critical moral debate in our nations history when it was not the only issue? And will tomorrow bring the same type of resentment towards the Mexican Flag if deportation is not the reasonable, right thing to do, answer to the Undocumented Illegal Alien Labor Force issue?
The Confederate flag never represented "States Rights."

It represented the right of individual plantationists to abandon their played out farms in the SE, and pick up and move their human slavery to new territories in the SW & Mississippi valley.

When you say "state's rights in this "Confederate" context, exactly what rights do you say were being trampled?

Mexicans have nothing tro do with American slavery, or the rebellion.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#55 Nov 13, 2011
We the people are seeking a strong leader, Obama is a Marxist
http://wwwamericanpatriot-vance.blogspot.com/
Anne

Washington, DC

#56 Nov 14, 2011
iamsmarterthanyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be one of those idiots that believe the war was fought over slavery.
No matter how you try to spin it, the states' rights they claimed to be fighting for DID involve the right to maintain slavery. The war was also about economic domination between the industrialized North and the agricultural South but there is no denying that the South wanted to maintain the institution of slavery.
Chicago Guy

Winnetka, IL

#57 Nov 14, 2011
Reasonis wrote:
<quoted text>
If the Confederate Flag was, in and by itself, a symbol of the continuation of slavery in the South, I would say don't shove down peoples' throats. But it was also the symbol of Southern unity over the issue of Southern States rights to be Soveriegn States with rights defined and granted by the U.S. Constitution.
One of the issues that arose out of the slavery debate was whether a Soveriegn State had the right to determine it's own economic destiny? There is no doubt in my mind that as a matter of history, that the South would have agreed on any plan that would have allowed it to phase out the slave labor force of Blacks if that labor force would be replaced. In 1860, Blacks probably outnumbered Whites three to one in the South. That would tell anyone the impact of a sudden lose of this labor force would be horrific.
It's much the same issue of the Undocumented Labor Force that is in American today. One of the top arguments for not deporting this labor force in the impact it would have of the American economy.
So, why does the Confederate Flag represent a resentment towards slavery during a critical moral debate in our nations history when it was not the only issue? And will tomorrow bring the same type of resentment towards the Mexican Flag if deportation is not the reasonable, right thing to do, answer to the Undocumented Illegal Alien Labor Force issue?
Nearly every Southern States Declaration of Secession mentioned slavery as the key factor.

These are the documents the states, themselves, released at the time leading up to the war.

Do a little research. You'll find slavery WAS the only real issue at play.

“Who told you lies...”

Since: Nov 09

Can one day be truth?

#58 Nov 14, 2011
iamsmarterthanyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be one of those idiots that believe the war was fought over slavery.
The war didn't begin until issues involving the vote over slavery actually erupted into violent altercations. Slavery was the pinnacle of the "disagreement" between the Union and the Confederacy. So yes, slavery is why the war ultimately began. The truth is they didn't outlaw slavery because they thought it was immoral. It was strictly an economic agenda.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#59 Apr 27, 2012
Cerebral wrote:
<quoted text>The war didn't begin until issues involving the vote over slavery actually erupted into violent altercations. Slavery was the pinnacle of the "disagreement" between the Union and the Confederacy. So yes, slavery is why the war ultimately began. The truth is they didn't outlaw slavery because they thought it was immoral. It was strictly an economic agenda.
I will say this one more time.

The South wanted to secede from the Union becaue of economic reasons. Lincoln said No. A war broke out. Lincoln freed the slaves in order to crush the South.

The South had a flag the Union has a flag.

“Who told you lies...”

Since: Nov 09

Can one day be truth?

#60 Apr 28, 2012
iamsmarterthanyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I will say this one more time.
The South wanted to secede from the Union becaue of economic reasons. Lincoln said No. A war broke out. Lincoln freed the slaves in order to crush the South.
The South had a flag the Union has a flag.
You can say it a billion more times. It still coincides with exactly what I stated. Now answer this: why did the South seek secession?

Thank you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rick Perry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Big Money Swiftly Backing Jeb Bush Presidential... 5 min Deborah Lawson 1
Romney, it seems, making sense on immigrants Dec 14 Americans firts 4
Tea party abandons presidential race to focus o... (Oct '11) Dec 12 swedenforever 180
Petition Seeks to Get Posthumous Degree for Tex... Dec 12 Donny Brook 1
Navarrette: Mexico's economic surge could flip ... Dec 11 wild child 1
Perry: Most people expect him to run for president Dec 10 Bald beaver 1
A crowded GOP field for 2016 encounters donors ... Dec 10 BY A vote 17
More from around the web